BA> JM>>> Is issueing a signing statement breaking a law?

BA> BA>> Probably not.  But failing to properly execute the laws as
BA> BA>> passed by congress is or should be an impeachable offense.  The
BA> BA>> man's obvious intent is to do what he pleases and ignore the
BA> BA>> laws when they don't suit his purposes.

BA> JB> I thought his intent was to defend the country.  What limit
BA> JB> should he go  to in order to ensure we are never attacked again?

BA>The *only* way to insure that is to incinerate the rest of the
BA>planet.  How many hundred million people are you willing to kill,
BA>Jeff?

Again, do you have any evidence that he has done something that is not 
in defense of this country ?


BA> JB>  To all those who  would bash Bush for defending this country I
BA> JB> say "Bring on the charges and prove anything he is doing is not
BA>in defense of this
BA> JB> country."

BA>That does depend, does it not, on how one defines 'defense of this
BA>country?'

BA> JB>   Queue the crickets.  OTOH the Clintons broke many privacy
BA> JB> laws to attack  their political enemies.  Selfish acts.   

BA>So did Nixon, Jeff.  And Johnson.  And Kennedy.

And you have evidence that Bush has ?

What I want is folks to provide facts that Bush has caused harm to 
anyone here with his protection of this country.  What I am seeing is a 
lot of hand waiving and 60's mentality about fascism and nonsense but 
little real facts.  Since Bush has been in office we have been attacked 
on our own soil only once.  We have not had a stretch this long since 
Bush Sr. and Reagan.


Jeff


--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10